Selected Articles from our
newsletter

The C.A.S.H. Courier

ARTICLE from the Fall 2007 Issue

Wildlife Watching:
An Economic Boon to Communities

71 Million Participants
31% Of The Population
$40.5 Billion Spent
$7.65 Billion on Food & Lodging
Growing Business

12.5 Million Participants
5% Of The Population
$21.3 Billion Spent
$2.71 Billion on Food & Lodging
Mature Business

By Peter Muller

When we compare various
wildlife associated recreational activities, wildlife watching has now so
decisively overtaken hunting by every measure that it is a “no-brainer” as
to which activity should be encouraged and which should be phased out by the
wildlife managing agencies.

Whether we look at
wildlife watching from the point of view of financial advantage to the
community where the activity takes, place, the beneficial (or at least the
minimal negative) impact on the eco-system, or satisfying the greatest
number and the greatest percentage of people who seek opportunities to
participate in the activity – wildlife watching outperforms hunting in all
respects.

Wildlife watching is incompatible with hunting. Abundance of wildlife
attracts both wildlife watchers and hunters. The seasons when wildlife and
migrating birds are of most interest to both hunters and wildlife watches
coincide. Wildlife watchers do not want to be afield in places when
hunting takes place for an obvious concern for their own safety, as well as
not wanting to witness the destruction of the fauna they have come to
appreciate. It pretty much has to be one or the other, and any rational
choice should be decisively in favor of wildlife watching.

Let’s look at the financial contribution made by the two groups of
participants to the communities where the activity takes place. The national
figures are fairly well representative of the various regional (state)
figures as well.

All figures cited (unless otherwise noted) are from the 2006 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (issued July
2007 — final version to be issued in November 2007 but not yet available at
the time of this writing). All of these data are about individuals 16 years
old and older.

Nationwide there are six times as many wildlife watchers as there are
hunters; they outspend hunters 2:1 in total expenditures, and 3:1 for Food
and Lodging. In no state in the union were there more hunters than wildlife
watchers.

Leaving all considerations of ethics aside, choosing simply to
accommodate the preferred activity of the largest number of individuals who
want to participate in wildlife-associated recreation – the choice has to be
to favor wildlife watching over hunting. If we additionally consider the
financial benefit to the community where the activity takes place – then
there simply is no alternative except to opt for wildlife watching over
hunting.

What about the impact on the ecosystem between wildlife watching and
hunting? Here again, any objective, rational analysis will show that the
ecosystem as a whole is much better served by wildlife watching than by
hunting. The ecosystem is best served if biodiversity is naturally
maintained. In order to accommodate hunting, wildlife managers will
manipulate the habitat and promulgate regulations that permit the “maximum
sustainable yield” or simply put the largest number of live targets for the
hunters. That is akin to taking a forest that has a greatly diverse flora
and turning it into a mono-crop plantation.

By the way, in Canada, we see the same pattern of demand for wildlife
watching over hunting.

For Canadians 16 years of age or older, the percentage of participants in
wildlife watching (18.6%) exceeds the percentage of participants in hunting
(5.1%). In both the US and Canada, the percentage of hunters has
crashed down to 5% over from nearly double that in the last 20 years. From
the above cited studies, we see that:

Wildlife viewing attracted 526,000 U.S. visitors to Canada [in 1996].
* Most U.S. visitors who visited Canada for wildlife related activity
visited Ontario (50.0%)
* Neither survey addressed cross-border trips for hunting because previous
surveys revealed that few Canadians hunted in the United States and few
Americans hunted in Canada.
* U.S. visitors who visited Canada for wildlife watching activities spent
$352.5 million.
* The U.S. leisure travel market is the biggest and richest in the world
* The dominant types of tourism are nature-based tourism, including
ecotourism…

Since tourism is already a major industry in Canada, and is establishing
itself as a major industry in the US, it would make sense for both countries
to invest in the promotion of wildlife watching as a valuable center-piece
of the tourism industry.

The facts are there, the numbers are there, the customer-base is
there, the money is there. There still seems to be an irrational
reluctance of government agencies to embrace this economic resource because
the political will is not yet there. The wildlife management agencies
are fully vested in the hunting alternative.

The agencies are staffed by “good-ole-boy” hunters who have a personal
interest in perpetuating the perverse hobby, regardless of the financial
consequences to their community – or the ethical considerations of
supporting such a barbaric, out-dated practice. The agencies are totally
committed to maintaining the hunting alternative at all costs until the last
hunter drops from his tree stand. The political office holders who are
putatively overseeing these agencies are afraid to act decisively in making
the necessary changes. The old political habit of yielding to the hunting
and gun lobbies is still strong and has to overcome by presenting the
economic interests of their constituents to the political office-holders at
all levels of government.

We have to point out to the private industries groups, such as B&Bs
and hotels, as well as state, county, town and village tourism boards that
there is a pool of new revenue out there waiting for them if they let their
political representatives know, in no uncertain terms, which side of the
toast the soy spread is on.